<html>
<body>
At 10:48 13/11/2013, parminder wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Verdana">
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/sacrificing-the-icann-wil_b_4259217.html">
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/sacrificing-the-icann-wil_b_4259217.html</a>
</font><br>
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias">
Jean-Christophe Nothias</a> </blockquote><br>
The idea of an ICANN/IANA gambit seems correct. However, he is only
considering one branch of the problem and does not refer to its root and,
therefore, ignores the second and possible other branches. I would
suggest for us to not do the same and to rather play the
"summit-coalition-dialogue-conference-etc." safe, through at
least two concerting CS groups (one for each main branch), so that
whatever the outcome there will be, CS people will be on the winning
side.<br><br>
I observe that what eventually makes the difference is "The
BUG" of the Internet
(<a href="http://thebugofthe.net/">http://theBUGofthe.net</a>). There
are:<br><br>
1. those who accept it (most are, but are not aware of it or deny
The BUG);<br>
2. those who actually benefit from it and keep smoke-screening it (the
I*$ociety: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" [Vint Cerf]);
<br>
3. those who want to get rid of it because:<br>
3.1. they are a Telco [they are now back "in the family" says
ICANN]: ITU majority. They are opposed on behalf of net neutrality.<br>
3.2. they want an open internet (I am one of them).<br><br>
As the WCIT imposes on them and probably due to indications from the NSA,
the US Stakeholders have decided to straighten the situation out before
any other government or grassroots critical move. This was prepared well
before Edward Snowden was hired by BAH and fed by the NSA: the RFC 6852
reported covenant was signed on Aug. 29, 2012.<br><br>
The situation the I*$ociety has put itself in, and consequently
ourselves, calls for an eventual choice between The BUG (of which ICANN
is a structural occurrence) and the Internet Use (IUse), open or not
(this is a decision by each government). The swiftness and good timing
(Montevideo, Rio, Buenos Aires) permit them to squeeze governments
opposing the statUS-quo, and prevent short-cuts by private initiatives.
<br><br>
There will be a gray (192 Govs to convince) response in between two main
options: <br><br>
<b><u>1. ICANN is "globalized".<br><br>
</u></b>It becomes an innovation embarrassment for the world, and the
indirect ISOC governor of the Internet's "huge bounty" (cf. RFC
6852). <br><br>
ISOC is acknowledged as the intellectual "owner" of the
Internet. <br><br>
<b><u>2. ICANN is "glocalized"</u>
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glocalization">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glocalization</a>): <br><br>
</b>it keeps its role as the IANA manager (with technical inputs from the
involved SDOs [RFC 2860 (*)], as per RFC 5226), i.e. the technical
repository for the leading digital transport systems. The agreement will
be among the referent frame managers.<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>(*) RFC 2860: " It is recognized that ICANN
may, through the IANA, provide similar services to other organisations
with respect to protocols not within IETF's scope (i.e. registries not
created by IETF or IRTF action); nothing in this MOU limits ICANN's
ability to do so."<br><br>
The Internet is acknowledged as one part of the people centered whole
digital ecosystem. <br>
<br>
At 11:05 13/11/2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I will be travelling to Buenos
Aires for the ICANN 48 meeting and will check my emails intermittently as
I travel especially as this is during the time of the NomCom selections
etc.<br>
Norbert will run the RFC process for selection etc. I will be checking my
emails intermittently.</blockquote><br>
Are you going to attend on behalf of CS?<br>
jfc </body>
</html>